Yes, I know that the Royals will help most anyone's offense, but 16 runs last night, and 7 in the first two innings (so far) tonight? Sheesh.

I hope this team uses up all its power getting back into the playoffs, and fizzles when it really matters.

rowand33

08-07-2005, 03:01 PM

they just put up 7 in the first two innings.

My question is... how?!?

How are they doing this?

when did Jay Payton become the best player ever?

SpringfldFan

08-07-2005, 03:18 PM

The A's are shooting their "wad" now. The question is whether it is a 100 game "wad"

SFF

Erik The Red

08-07-2005, 07:47 PM

The A's are built for the regular season. They don't manufacture runs well, and that's why they'll be eliminated again come playoff time.

SoxSpeed22

08-07-2005, 07:53 PM

The A's are built for the regular season. They don't manufacture runs well, and that's why they'll be eliminated again come playoff time.I'm sure everyone here is praying that you're right. Except, they're running out of ways to blow it. They already used misjudging flys, not sliding, bad pitching, shoving the catcher instead of touching home, arguing instead of running home and blow it in the last games of the season. Let's hope they blow it in the first round.

GiveMeSox

08-07-2005, 08:56 PM

Yes, I know that the Royals will help most anyone's offense, but 16 runs last night, and 7 in the first two innings (so far) tonight? Sheesh.

I hope this team uses up all its power getting back into the playoffs, and fizzles when it really matters.

Here is my expert opinion and I know a lot of baseball experts agree with this too. The A's are having a lot of success based on timing and the "new or rookie" affect. Simply the league has not adjusted yet. The A's in my opinion are in enigma, no doubt things are going well for them now but why should we all think they will be their in the end. The A's have introduced a surge into a smooth flowing power grid. The A's have a lot of talented guys who have never played in the big leagues before, both hitting and pitching, and well the league simply has no advanced scouting report on them. Their pitchers are new to all teams scouting reports and their hitters are new to the leagues pitchers and scouts. Therefore they have the enigma advantage. They are doing to everyone what happens to the sox when they are facing a pitcher they have never seen before. Quite simply many rookies, pitchers and hitters, have a lot of success their first years when the league hasn't figured out how to get them out yet or in the pitchers case hasnt figured out how to hit them. A few example would be Clint Barnes from Col, Zach Duke from Pit, Chris Shelton from Det, Dan Johnson from Oak, etc etc. The A's are the epidemy of this principle and composed of 25 guys who fit this notion.

JRIG

08-07-2005, 09:26 PM

Here is my expert opinion and I know a lot of baseball experts agree with this too. The A's are having a lot of success based on timing and the "new or rookie" affect. Simply the league has not adjusted yet. The A's in my opinion are in enigma, no doubt things are going well for them now but why should we all think they will be their in the end. The A's have introduced a surge into a smooth flowing power grid. The A's have a lot of talented guys who have never played in the big leagues before, both hitting and pitching, and well the league simply has no advanced scouting report on them. Their pitchers are new to all teams scouting reports and their hitters are new to the leagues pitchers and scouts. Therefore they have the enigma advantage. They are doing to everyone what happens to the sox when they are facing a pitcher they have never seen before. Quite simply many rookies, pitchers and hitters, have a lot of success their first years when the league hasn't figured out how to get them out yet or in the pitchers case hasnt figured out how to hit them. A few example would be Clint Barnes from Col, Zach Duke from Pit, Chris Shelton from Det, Dan Johnson from Oak, etc etc. The A's are the epidemy of this principle and composed of 25 guys who fit this notion.

But, but....Oakland has exactly two rookie hitters contributing -- Nick Swisher and Dan Johnson. And two rookie pitchers -- Joe Blanton and Huston Street. (Haren had more than 100 IP in the big leagues with the Cards) And Blanton got the **** kicked out of him for the first two months of the season. So those guys having the "rookie effect" is why the A's have won like 42 of their last 48 games?

I'll sit back and wait for my next explanation of how Beane has lucked into having a great team for the 6th straight year.

Jerome

08-08-2005, 02:15 AM

Here is my expert opinion and I know a lot of baseball experts agree with this too. The A's are having a lot of success based on timing and the "new or rookie" affect. Simply the league has not adjusted yet. The A's in my opinion are in enigma, no doubt things are going well for them now but why should we all think they will be their in the end. The A's have introduced a surge into a smooth flowing power grid. The A's have a lot of talented guys who have never played in the big leagues before, both hitting and pitching, and well the league simply has no advanced scouting report on them. Their pitchers are new to all teams scouting reports and their hitters are new to the leagues pitchers and scouts. Therefore they have the enigma advantage. They are doing to everyone what happens to the sox when they are facing a pitcher they have never seen before. Quite simply many rookies, pitchers and hitters, have a lot of success their first years when the league hasn't figured out how to get them out yet or in the pitchers case hasnt figured out how to hit them. A few example would be Clint Barnes from Col, Zach Duke from Pit, Chris Shelton from Det, Dan Johnson from Oak, etc etc. The A's are the epidemy of this principle and composed of 25 guys who fit this notion.

Once a team is good for more than 3-4 consecutive years like the A's are, then they are no longer an enigma. Are the patriots an enigma? Every year they seem to put in these new players that no one's ever heard of, yet still win. And what is so bad about young players? They are cheaper than veterans, which is all the A's care about anyways.

And the notion that they can't manufacture runs is garbage too. In 2002 to the twinkies the A's gave up 7, 11, and 5 runs in their 3 losses. I don't care what kind of offense you have, in the playoffs, you can't win if that happens.

In 2003 (Red Sox) in loss 1, the A's committed 4 errors. You don't deserve to win if you commit 4 errors in a playoff game (That bizarre call involving Byrnes didn't help). In loss 2, the A's were in control until Keith Foulke's major meltdown. Glancing at a box score, you will see that most of Boston's runs came on the home run, or doubles, not "manufactured". In loss 3, ALL of Boston's runs came via Home Run. Barry Zito just made some mistakes that Boston's hitters wouldn't let him get away with. Plain and simple. Last year the Angels were just a better team. (and about 30-40 million more expensive too). You can't take anything away from the Angels, this year or last.

I fail to see how the A's failure to "manufacture" runs has to do with losing. I blame it on Boston's big bats and the A's pitchers just flat out choking. Plus all the reasons that SoxSpeed22 mentioned. If not stealing, bunting, manufacuring, etc, works for you in the regular season, why wouldn't you do what has been successful for you in the playoffs?

GiveMeSox

08-08-2005, 04:40 AM

But, but....Oakland has exactly two rookie hitters contributing -- Nick Swisher and Dan Johnson. And two rookie pitchers -- Joe Blanton and Huston Street. (Haren had more than 100 IP in the big leagues with the Cards) And Blanton got the **** kicked out of him for the first two months of the season. So those guys having the "rookie effect" is why the A's have won like 42 of their last 48 games?

I'll sit back and wait for my next explanation of how Beane has lucked into having a great team for the 6th straight year.

Kirk Sarloos, Danny Haren, Dan Johnson, Nick Swisher, Kendall, Justin Durescher, Huston Street...all these guys are either rookies being seen by the league for the first time or switched leages and are in the AL for the first time. My point is valid and it holds for players switching leagues too, at least for the first time.

GiveMeSox

08-08-2005, 04:41 AM

Once a team is good for more than 3-4 consecutive years like the A's are, then they are no longer an enigma. Are the patriots an enigma? Every year they seem to put in these new players that no one's ever heard of, yet still win. And what is so bad about young players? They are cheaper than veterans, which is all the A's care about anyways.

And the notion that they can't manufacture runs is garbage too. In 2002 to the twinkies the A's gave up 7, 11, and 5 runs in their 3 losses. I don't care what kind of offense you have, in the playoffs, you can't win if that happens.

In 2003 (Red Sox) in loss 1, the A's committed 4 errors. You don't deserve to win if you commit 4 errors in a playoff game (That bizarre call involving Byrnes didn't help). In loss 2, the A's were in control until Keith Foulke's major meltdown. Glancing at a box score, you will see that most of Boston's runs came on the home run, or doubles, not "manufactured". In loss 3, ALL of Boston's runs came via Home Run. Barry Zito just made some mistakes that Boston's hitters wouldn't let him get away with. Plain and simple. Last year the Angels were just a better team. (and about 30-40 million more expensive too). You can't take anything away from the Angels, this year or last.

I fail to see how the A's failure to "manufacture" runs has to do with losing. I blame it on Boston's big bats and the A's pitchers just flat out choking. Plus all the reasons that SoxSpeed22 mentioned. If not stealing, bunting, manufacuring, etc, works for you in the regular season, why wouldn't you do what has been successful for you in the playoffs?

I dont know what Manufacturing runs has anything do with this. I didnt mention that or refer to that in any sense. My point was rookies and players in the AL for the first time, though very talented, usually have the "league hasn't adjusted" to us yet rule.

OEO Magglio

08-08-2005, 05:09 AM

But, but....Oakland has exactly two rookie hitters contributing -- Nick Swisher and Dan Johnson. And two rookie pitchers -- Joe Blanton and Huston Street. (Haren had more than 100 IP in the big leagues with the Cards) And Blanton got the **** kicked out of him for the first two months of the season. So those guys having the "rookie effect" is why the A's have won like 42 of their last 48 games?

I'll sit back and wait for my next explanation of how Beane has lucked into having a great team for the 6th straight year.
Beane isn't lucky, he put together a good team. However, mark my words the A's wont even come close to winning a world series with Beane as a gm, that kind of offense just won't get it done in the playoffs.

By the way that 77 win prediction is looking good.:tongue:

JRIG

08-08-2005, 06:26 AM

Beane isn't lucky, he put together a good team. However, mark my words the A's wont even come close to winning a world series with Beane as a gm, that kind of offense just won't get it done in the playoffs.

By the way that 77 win prediction is looking good.:tongue:

Yes, my pre-season pick for the Sox is going to be slightly off. But I've never been happier to be completely wrong! :bandance:

balke

08-08-2005, 11:25 AM

they just put up 7 in the first two innings.

My question is... how?!?

How are they doing this?

when did Jay Payton become the best player ever?

Jay Payton was doing pretty well for limited play in Boston. I was asking how Boston had such a good player coming off the bench. It was pretty surprising they just cut the guy basically. Great pickup by Oakland. He's not THIS good maybe, but he's a solid ballplayer with power and who seems clutch.

GAsoxfan

08-08-2005, 11:54 AM

Beane isn't lucky, he put together a good team. However, mark my words the A's wont even come close to winning a world series with Beane as a gm, that kind of offense just won't get it done in the playoffs.

It might be easier if he was able to retain the players the A's develop. Tejada, Damon, Giambi, Mulder, Hudson, Foulke(although they didn't develop him). That's a lot of talent to lose.

rowand33

08-08-2005, 12:37 PM

Jay Payton was doing pretty well for limited play in Boston. I was asking how Boston had such a good player coming off the bench. It was pretty surprising they just cut the guy basically. Great pickup by Oakland. He's not THIS good maybe, but he's a solid ballplayer with power and who seems clutch.

yeah, I thikn Payton is a decent ballplayer, but if you project his numbers with oakland out over a full year (550 ABs), he's on pace for 41 homers and 130 RBI.

He is nowhere near that good.

I've always seen him as a 20 hr, 80-90 RBI, .280-.290 AVG sort of guy if playing up to potential.

nedlug

08-08-2005, 12:53 PM

The A's have been reminiscent of the Utah Jazz teams of the 90's. Malone and Stockton ran that pick and roll for 50-60 wins every year, made the playoffs, and never could break through and get it done in the playoffs. A station-to-station team can have no psychological advantage on a pitcher, who only has to worry about one person - the batter.

This team is great, and they have the potential to win the Series, but they have to do it before mainstream baseball will begin to move toward Beane's philosophy.

Jerome

08-08-2005, 07:03 PM

I dont know what Manufacturing runs has anything do with this. I didnt mention that or refer to that in any sense. My point was rookies and players in the AL for the first time, though very talented, usually have the "league hasn't adjusted" to us yet rule.

whoops sorry, the erikthered with that cool blackhawks jersey sig said the thing about manufacturing runs.